Welcome to the Freedomain Radio Message Board

If you're interested in joining the philosophical discussion, click "sign in" or "create account" on the right of the page. If you're creating a new account, please be sure to include an explanation as to why you're interested in joining the message board community. This verification requirement is included to cut down on possible troll and spam accounts.

If you have supported Freedomain Radio financially and would like immediate access to the message board - or - your donation status is incorrect, please contact Michael at operations@freedomainradio.com with your information and the situation will be addresses ASAP.

Samuel Stringman

Posted 28 September 2013 - 02:14 AM

"Structural violence" seems to be what happens when a price greater than zero gets between a poor person an a life saving good or service like food or medicine.

[color=rgb(0,0,0);font-family:sans-serif;font-size:12.666666984558105px]In 1984, [/color]Petra Kelly[color=rgb(0,0,0);font-family:sans-serif;font-size:12.666666984558105px] wrote in her first book, [/color]Fighting for Hope[color=rgb(0,0,0);font-family:sans-serif;font-size:12.666666984558105px]:[/color]

A third of the 2 Billion people in the developing countries are starving or suffering from malnutrition. Twenty-five per cent of their children die before their fifth birthday […] Less than 10 per cent of the 15 million children who died this year had been vaccinatedagainst the six most common and dangerous children's diseases. Vaccination costs £3 per child. But not doing so costs us five million lives a year. These are classic examples of structural violence.

[color=rgb(0,0,0);font-family:sans-serif;font-size:12.666666984558105px]Countries such as Haiti and Rwanda have implemented these interventions with positive outcomes. Examples include prohibiting the commodification of the citizen needs, such as health care, ensuring equitable access to effective therapies, and the development of social safety nets. These examples increase citizen’s social and economic rights, thus decreasing structural violence. However, for these structural interventions to be successful, medical professionals need to be capable of executing such a task. Unfortunately, many of these professionals are not trained to perform structural interventions. [/color][color=rgb(0,0,0);font-family:sans-serif;font-size:11.333333015441895px]^[/color][color=rgb(0,0,0);font-family:sans-serif;font-size:11.333333015441895px;background-color:rgb(221,238,255)] [/color][color=rgb(0,0,0);font-family:sans-serif;font-size:11.333333015441895px]Farmer et al (2006)[/color]

I would be curious to know if the prohibition of the buying and selling of health care improved things in Haiti or Rwanda. Usually such measures only make things worse by removing constructive incentives.

I don't think "structural violence" is a result of market failure. It is simply a failure of means on the part of those purchasing healthcare, education, water, and food. This rapidly shrinking group of destitute people will continue to be lifted from poverty as humanity continues to become wealthier. I see no need for a risky socialist project like the Zeitgeist movement to alleviate this poverty since capitalism, however restrained by the states of the world, is already doing a good job of making it disappear. Judging by the video, Peter Joseph holds many orthodox Marxist views. Marxist regimes did not eliminate poverty as fast as capitalist economies, so I do not think that repackaged Marxist ideas will do a better job at ending poverty.

I think debunking the concept of "structural violence" and similar concepts is essential to promoting voluntarism since structural violence conflates voluntary economic systems with violence. If someone can be convinced that capitalism causes death and destruction they will seek to limit capitalism. I see similar arguments used for the criminalization of recreational drugs and file sharing. These benign activities are conflated with criminal ones to convince the public that police action is needed to keep order and/or protect the innocent. Marxists are making a similar sales pitch with structural violence. They conflate capitalism first with violence and then with inequality to convince people that redistribution of wealth is the only way to make sure that people do not die of preventable disease or malnutrition even though globalization of trade is currently solving the problem of poverty. Redistribution schemes and foreign aid have not been as effective as trade in eliminating poverty in Asia, but trade with the West has. This is a problem for Marxists since many Marxists believe that trade can be inherently exploitative, one sided, and unfair.

ProfessionalTeabagger

Posted 28 September 2013 - 04:02 PM

I've said elsewhere that "The structural violence inherent in the family results in the violent structure of the State " is a reasonable restatement of Stefan's position.

My feeling is that you don't like that phrase because of the leftist connotations that tarnish the similar phrase "social justice" would I be correct?

I don't think Stefan has ever said anything like violence is inherent in the family. I think he's said that violence IN the family can result in the violence of the state. For something to be inherent it has to be a necessary part. Stef has said the violence is not necessary in the family.

What has liking or not liking the term "structural violence" got to do with whether it is valid or not?

David Ottinger

Posted 28 September 2013 - 07:10 PM

I think structural violence debunks itself. Enforced structure is violence, and the solution is to enforce more structure?

Nailed it!

Though, if anyone wants to go deeper into what Joseph is advocating...

It's important to note that he is limiting the topic of scarcity to the scarcity of goods necessary for survival.

For example...

If there are X amount of people, then you need X amount of weight in food and water;

If there are X amount of people, then you need X amount of surface area for shelter (including x amount of materials for the domicile).

So, the argument goes: All these needs are quantifiable, and thus if we structure production to fullfill these needs using the most efficient means available/conceivable, then all needs associated with one's survival can be provided for. As such, the quality of life for everyone is raised because this system focuses on allocating resources for the purpose of maximizing public health.

It's a very seductive ideology because it pruports the idea: If one is not required to exert physical or mental energy towards acquiring goods for satisfying survival needs, then he/she is free to contemplate other interests -- which are usually more fascinating. After all, what is more important than time? The one thing we cannot produce.

Essentially, the idea is akin to advocating perpetual motion. Like wise, Joseph fails to acknowledge the law of diminishing returns insofar as population growth is concerned. There is no perfect equilibrium that can be achieved. A population will grow respectively to economic output. And it will always test those limits.

I suppose you could enact population control methods, but you might end up with a society like China where the male/female ratio is grossly disproprtionate.

Overall, in order to factor out this notion of structural violence, then one needs to create a system that achieves perfect equilibrium. But, even if you use force, you still cannot homogonize human action. The very act of using force in attempts to homogonize human action inadventely creates a duality -- the one Stefan is always pointing out. That's why adherence to the NAP is going to provide the closest we can get to perfect equilibirum. I believe this pont here is taking into account the uncertainty principle. Another principle Joseph is failing to take into account.

And, I'm willing to bet there is a better argument that can be made with respect to the uncertainty principle. But, at this juncture my understanding of the principle is not complete enough to articulate it simply.

To put this into better perspective, the below video will indirectly show how close we can get to engineering the perfect sphere. Because, in the abstract we can conceive of the perfect sphere, but implementing it in reality is quite different.

MarkIX

Posted 29 September 2013 - 06:11 AM

MarkIX

777 posts

I don't think Stefan has ever said anything like violence is inherent in the family. I think he's said that violence IN the family can result in the violence of the state. For something to be inherent it has to be a necessary part. Stef has said the violence is not necessary in the family.

What has liking or not liking the term "structural violence" got to do with whether it is valid or not?

If I restated it as

"The violence inherent within the vast majority of current family practices results in the violent structure of the state"

Do you think that is a fair restatement of Stefan's position?

I like the phrase because I think it allows greater descriptive ability than I previously possessed.

aeonicentity

Posted 29 September 2013 - 02:47 PM

Structural violence is a term which means that the current cultural establishment promotes violence by forcing competition. This draws two eronious assumptions:

a) Cultultural establishment causes violent nature in humans.

b) Competition causes violent nature in humans.

Both of these are couched in trans-humanism: the erronious idea that despite 40 thousand years of evolution, if we evolve just a little. bit. more. we will some how be able to magically divorce ourselves from our evolutionary past.

Cultural establishment does not promote violent behavior in humans. Our own biology does a good enough job for us already. The concept of eliminating 'structural violence' is as silly as the idea that by wishing really really hard, we can make the sun rain salmon steaks. What they're basically saying is that "if only we could change 40,000 years of human behavior in the blink of an eye, we could all hold hands and sing campfire songs and no one would die ever again!"

As to the second erroneous assumption: Competition does NOT cause violent nature in humans. My boss is very competitive, but not violent. Any entrepreneur knows you need to be competitive, but not violent or else you'll go to court. While competition can play a role in violence, often violence occurs because of the opposite of competition. When one man has power over another, THAT is when the most violence happens. People buck horns all the time without violence, but oppression never happens without it. And oppression is definitely NOT competitive.

ribuck

Posted 29 September 2013 - 05:21 PM

The most effective way to eliminate poverty is to remove violently-enforced trade restrictions. But the figure for people lifted out of poverty is actually 70 million per year, not per day, so it will take more than a few weeks

Samuel Stringman

Posted 29 September 2013 - 10:27 PM

Samuel Stringman

2 posts

The most effective way to eliminate poverty is to remove violently-enforced trade restrictions. But the figure for people lifted out of poverty is actually 70 million per year, not per day, so it will take more than a few weeks

MarkIX

Posted 30 September 2013 - 02:30 AM

MarkIX

777 posts

Cultural establishment does not promote violent behavior in humans. Our own biology does a good enough job for us already. The concept of eliminating 'structural violence' is as silly as the idea that by wishing really really hard, we can make the sun rain salmon steaks. What they're basically saying is that "if only we could change 40,000 years of human behavior in the blink of an eye, we could all hold hands and sing campfire songs and no one would die ever again!"

Actually you won't get far on this board with that argument. It's taken as given that people are adaptable and can be weaned off violence (over time).

It is also not an argument for "Structural Violence" as two better terms for it would either be "Violence" or "Social Interaction". If the violence in Society is "inherent" in the individual it is "inherited" by the structure of society.

aeonicentity

Posted 30 September 2013 - 06:44 PM

aeonicentity

101 posts

MarkIX: I don't consider the hope that people become better through training and education false. But the assumption of TZM is that violence isn't inherent in the people, but in the society. This is not true. If we were fundamentally non-violent people, we wouldn't have founded violent societies. The problem with people isn't that we're non-violent people living in a violent society, its that we're inherently violent people living in a society which reflects that side of our nature.

This isn't to say we can't be non-violent beings (as you put it we can be 'weaned' off violence), but putting on blinders, and assuming that people would fundamentally do good if there was some kind of mystical equality is a false premise. Any sense of moral or ethic you have is trained into you by yourself, parents, and life experiences.

That is my fundamental problem with the TZM perspective. it wholly ignores human nature, and presumes (falsely) that if society changed, humans would all be inherently good.

I'm not sure what you mean by your second paragraph. Perhaps you can clarify for me.

ewl

Posted 30 September 2013 - 06:49 PM

ewl

3 posts

When I think of the term "structural violence" it seems like a cop-out-- it removes culpability from being placed squarely on those it belongs, and invites entire groups to be punished for the indiscretions of individuals. If violence is being committed, someone is responsible. Name names, and describe what they did.

Zimobog

Posted 30 September 2013 - 07:05 PM

Zimobog

22 posts

I get put off by arguements about "human nature". People are molded to such an extent by how they were raised, cultures/states and religions they were indoctrinated in, and past experiences both positive and negative that what emotional and mental state is actually "natural" to humans is unknowable in my opinion.

What is knowable, or factual, about human nature is that we are organic, need food/air/water/shelter to survive etc.

Beyond that, Im not sure there is a "human nature", at least not one we can scientfically discern.

Humans act in two ways: one way is to please themselves and the other is to please those around them. What "norms" will prevail, and possibly be percieved as "human nature" will be those humans observe please those around them. Much normal behavior is learned through the reaction of other to a given action.

If one was raised Pawnee and thus seizing several slaves and horses as well as burning a village was met by smiles and approval, even adulation, by their people one would decide that this approval reinforced the ethical belief that slavery, theft, murder, and arson were "human nature". Are they?

The converse is also resonably true for reinforcement of positive behavior that doesn't violate NAP.

Humans have the ability to reason and thus determine axioms and truth. It is therefore possible to combine reason and truth with positive behavior to determine that humanity can abandon murder/theft/etc.

aeonicentity

Posted 01 October 2013 - 03:15 AM

aeonicentity

101 posts

I get put off by arguements about "human nature". People are molded to such an extent by how they were raised, cultures/states and religions they were indoctrinated in, and past experiences both positive and negative that what emotional and mental state is actually "natural" to humans is unknowable in my opinion.

What is knowable, or factual, about human nature is that we are organic, need food/air/water/shelter to survive etc.

Beyond that, Im not sure there is a "human nature", at least not one we can scientfically discern.

I see your concern and your argument, but disagree that we cannot scientifically discern human nature. One can make a reasonable inference between related ape animal kingdoms and human behavior. And in all Ape cultures we see a culture where social order is frequently enforced through violent behavior. We also see that as we construct increasingly free societies, violence trends downward. Therefore, we can conclude that it is training which restrains us from our deeper instincts, rather than training which is the cause of violence (the current system reinforces violent behavior, not creates it).

Let us also consider the elephant, which in the absence of older male 'enforcers' suffers from rambuncious young males who will litterally trample vulnerable females in the herd.

Lastly let us consider children: A child is born with absolutely no moral ethic. A child is entirely selfish. The world absolutely revolves around it and its needs, and it will cry until its needs are met. As they grow they do tend to achieve a greater understanding of the world around them, but even a 2 year old can't understand or empathize with other children naturally. They usually have to be coached through. Children naturally hit. My niece will hit people with her bunny to get attention. Now her parents don't hit each other to get attention. She doesn't see that on TV (they strictly regulate her viewing). She simply hits because she lacks the moral scope to understand that her behavior is bad because it is selfish.

That being said, very few people are VERY violent. I doubt my niece will go on to be a mass murderer because she hits people with bunnies.

In these three examples I conclude that human nature does exist, and that it is inherently violent. What we must do is train people to NOT be their naturally violent selves.

Lians

Posted 02 October 2013 - 02:22 AM

Lians

528 posts

Attach any adjectives you can think of to the word "violence" (post-modernist, transhumanist violence) and see if you can come up with a corresponding explanation for the resulting term. It's quite easy. "Structural violence" is once of those meaningless terms that are deliberately open to all kinds of interpretations. The nature of violence doesn't change depending on a particular context. For example, the state is not evil because it promotes violence. The state, as an abstract entity, has no capacity to do anything. People use the idea of the state to justify their use of violence. That's why Stef's approach (peaceful parenting) is so powerful. It bypasses all the abstract nonsense that people use to cloak their true intentions. Always try to move from the abstract to the concrete. If you notice someone is building an argument on the basis of meaningless terms, you're probably dealing with a sophist.

Guest_darkskyabove_*

Posted 02 October 2013 - 03:05 AM

Guest_darkskyabove_*

Both of these are couched in trans-humanism: the erronious idea that despite 40 thousand years of evolution, if we evolve just a little. bit. more. we will some how be able to magically divorce ourselves from our evolutionary past.

For the sake of consistency I present a synopsis of evolution. (Oh crud, now I have to be the Science Nazi. )

Evolution involves the divergence of one species into two or more different species. (Which can no longer interbreed.) Homo sapiens has existed for roughly 200,000 years (anatomical modernity) with the current subspecies, homo sapiens sapiens (human), existing for around 50,000 years (behavioral modernity). Humans have not "evolved" during this time, and never will, though they exhibit an increase in variation within the gene pool. If a new species were to branch from the human line, that species would be said to have evolved from humans.

The most likely cause of discussing evolution out of context is probably due to the idea of cultural evolution. The term is entrenched, no matter how misleading it is. Cultural evolution is a valid study (a part of anthropology, I believe), and is more applicable to the current topic. (More applicable to most any topic concerning human behavior.) The exception would be if comparing humans to other primates, where a connection could be shown through our evolutionary linkage.

aeonicentity

Posted 03 October 2013 - 12:37 AM

aeonicentity

101 posts

Darksky, my point being that the idea of trans-humanism or that we can control our next evolutionary step and become "Homo Superior" breaks the fundamental rules of actual scientific evolution, namely that it is change over time directed by natural selection towards that which has an imperative reproductive advantage.

Zimobog

Posted 03 October 2013 - 12:38 AM

Zimobog

22 posts

I see your concern and your argument, but disagree that we cannot scientifically discern human nature. One can make a reasonable inference between related ape animal kingdoms and human behavior. And in all Ape cultures we see a culture where social order is frequently enforced through violent behavior. We also see that as we construct increasingly free societies, violence trends downward. Therefore, we can conclude that it is training which restrains us from our deeper instincts, rather than training which is the cause of violence (the current system reinforces violent behavior, not creates it).

Let us also consider the elephant, which in the absence of older male 'enforcers' suffers from rambuncious young males who will litterally trample vulnerable females in the herd.

Lastly let us consider children: A child is born with absolutely no moral ethic. A child is entirely selfish. The world absolutely revolves around it and its needs, and it will cry until its needs are met. As they grow they do tend to achieve a greater understanding of the world around them, but even a 2 year old can't understand or empathize with other children naturally. They usually have to be coached through. Children naturally hit. My niece will hit people with her bunny to get attention. Now her parents don't hit each other to get attention. She doesn't see that on TV (they strictly regulate her viewing). She simply hits because she lacks the moral scope to understand that her behavior is bad because it is selfish.

That being said, very few people are VERY violent. I doubt my niece will go on to be a mass murderer because she hits people with bunnies.

In these three examples I conclude that human nature does exist, and that it is inherently violent. What we must do is train people to NOT be their naturally violent selves.

First of all, we need a definition of "violence". I would exclude from the definition of "violence" the actions of defense of territory against aggressive interlopers or invaders of property and also hunting behaviors.

Second, Bonobos are a species of ape that are not violent except in the sense above. They, chimps, and humans share over 90% of genetics in common. Could we not claim a non-violent heritage as easily as a violent one?

Third, having capacity for violence is not the same as violence being "natural".

And finally, if a child is born without a moral ethic, then can one assume that this supposition supports an ethic towards violence, an adversion to violence, or an ambivilance to violence?

As the oldest brother of six children and the father of two, I have some experience with the "natural violence" of a small child who hits. As an experiment, the next time a child strikes you try the following: fall down on the floor and wail as if you had had your pelvis shattered by her blow. If you are unable to muster real tears and a realistic visage of pain, cover your face to conceal your lack of acting ability as you scream and moan in pain. Refuse to face him/her, but instead shift your posture away submissively.

My experience is that one will be able to observe that the child's reaction to pain is one of instant sympathy and concern, as well as regret, for causing pain. I believe this experiment will confirm that children may have the capacity for violence, but not the natural inclination towards it and that children learn their morals from experience and the reaction of others. Also, it may confim my suspicion f that acts of violence on the part of the child may have been encouraged by adults ignoring or laughing at it thereby enforcing violence as acceptable, or to use your terminology, "natural".

MarkIX

Posted 03 October 2013 - 02:03 PM

MarkIX

777 posts

MarkIX: I don't consider the hope that people become better through training and education false. But the assumption of TZM is that violence isn't inherent in the people, but in the society. This is not true. If we were fundamentally non-violent people, we wouldn't have founded violent societies. The problem with people isn't that we're non-violent people living in a violent society, its that we're inherently violent people living in a society which reflects that side of our nature.

This isn't to say we can't be non-violent beings (as you put it we can be 'weaned' off violence), but putting on blinders, and assuming that people would fundamentally do good if there was some kind of mystical equality is a false premise. Any sense of moral or ethic you have is trained into you by yourself, parents, and life experiences.

That is my fundamental problem with the TZM perspective. it wholly ignores human nature, and presumes (falsely) that if society changed, humans would all be inherently good.

I'm not sure what you mean by your second paragraph. Perhaps you can clarify for me.

I see your point thank you for clarifying it for me.

As to my second paragraph. I think I was saying that if violence is inherent in humans then it's inherent violence not structural violence, but now that I think about it I doubt that distinction is meaningful.

aeonicentity

Posted 23 October 2013 - 01:21 AM

aeonicentity

101 posts

First of all, we need a definition of "violence". I would exclude from the definition of "violence" the actions of defense of territory against aggressive interlopers or invaders of property and also hunting behaviors.

Second, Bonobos are a species of ape that are not violent except in the sense above. They, chimps, and humans share over 90% of genetics in common. Could we not claim a non-violent heritage as easily as a violent one?

Third, having capacity for violence is not the same as violence being "natural".

And finally, if a child is born without a moral ethic, then can one assume that this supposition supports an ethic towards violence, an adversion to violence, or an ambivilance to violence?

As the oldest brother of six children and the father of two, I have some experience with the "natural violence" of a small child who hits. As an experiment, the next time a child strikes you try the following: fall down on the floor and wail as if you had had your pelvis shattered by her blow. If you are unable to muster real tears and a realistic visage of pain, cover your face to conceal your lack of acting ability as you scream and moan in pain. Refuse to face him/her, but instead shift your posture away submissively.

My experience is that one will be able to observe that the child's reaction to pain is one of instant sympathy and concern, as well as regret, for causing pain. I believe this experiment will confirm that children may have the capacity for violence, but not the natural inclination towards it and that children learn their morals from experience and the reaction of others. Also, it may confim my suspicion f that acts of violence on the part of the child may have been encouraged by adults ignoring or laughing at it thereby enforcing violence as acceptable, or to use your terminology, "natural".

While the Bonobo monkey experiment sounds fascinating, I would like to read it for myself first. I'm curious because this may be an example of genetic pre-disposition to peaceful behavior, or it might be proof that socialization can create a non-violent (or more accurately a pacifist) society. I hope you understand my scientific curiosity. Can you provide links?

As for your counter example with children, two things:

1) can we prove that this reaction is in absence of socialization?

2) If the reaction is indeed in absence of socialization, could it also not be possible that the child reacts to this stimulus in that way because the child is merely concerned that the action taken didn't achieve the intended result? An imperfect example might be a normal argument with some one escalating to a violent encounter resulting in injury often will end the argument, and may invoke a sympathetic response from the aggressor. IE: "I'm sorry baby, I didn't mean to hurt you!".

powder

Posted 23 October 2013 - 08:43 PM

powder

412 posts

I was going on about 'structural violence" in another thread. It is at the core of P J's thesis, and I did not feel like it was adequately addressed in the interview he had with Stef.

There are some very good responses here in this thread and as I posted in the other thread, Stef does a great job of dismantling the 'structural violence' gig in this video. It is with the second caller somewhere around 15 min in that he takes it on.

gwho

Posted 23 October 2013 - 09:06 PM

I've said elsewhere that "The structural violence inherent in the family results in the violent structure of the State " is a reasonable restatement of Stefan's position.

My feeling is that you don't like that phrase because of the leftist connotations that tarnish the similar phrase "social justice" would I be correct?

love the straight-up-ness!
i don't think getting rid of the term "violence" does anything, and that it's not interchangeable, because at the heart of what Peter Joseph said IS violence. it boils down to coercion. we can discuss further of course. That's just my impression of the convo.

"Structural violence"? What? Isn't violence unorganized and unstructured? It is not a complex thing.

he doesn't really mean structured as "orderly" more than as he does "systemic."